Comparative Studies Of Singapore Criminal Law And International Norms
1. Introduction
Singapore’s criminal law is primarily codified in the Penal Code (Cap. 224), and supplemented by statutes like the Misuse of Drugs Act, Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act, and the Criminal Procedure Code.
International norms come from sources like:
United Nations Conventions (e.g., ICCPR – International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)
International Criminal Court (ICC) standards
Regional human rights norms (ASEAN Human Rights Declaration)
Comparative studies analyze whether Singaporean law aligns with these norms, especially on punishment, human rights, procedural fairness, and definitions of crimes.
2. Death Penalty
Singapore Law
The death penalty is mandatory for certain offenses (e.g., murder, drug trafficking above specified thresholds).
Case 1: Public Prosecutor v Kho Jabing (2015)
Facts: Kho Jabing was convicted of murder. Singapore courts upheld the death sentence after considering aggravating and mitigating factors.
International Comparison: ICCPR (Article 6) and UN Human Rights norms discourage mandatory death sentences and emphasize clemency.
Principle: Singapore maintains mandatory and discretionary death penalties, contrasting international trends toward abolition or restricted use.
Case 2: Amnesty International v Singapore
Issue: International critique on mandatory death penalty for drug offenses.
Observation: Singapore’s Supreme Court has gradually allowed judicial discretion for certain drug trafficking cases, partially aligning with international criticism but maintaining strict deterrence.
3. Corporal Punishment
Singapore Law
Caning is prescribed under the Penal Code for crimes like robbery, rape, and drug offenses.
Case 3: Public Prosecutor v Tan Seet Eng (1995)
Facts: Defendant sentenced to death and caning for murder.
International Comparison: UN Human Rights Committee considers corporal punishment as potentially cruel, inhuman, or degrading.
Principle: Singapore uses corporal punishment as both retribution and deterrence, which conflicts with international norms emphasizing dignity.
4. Drug Offenses
Singapore has strict liability for drug trafficking.
Case 4: Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor (2010)
Facts: Yong, a Malaysian citizen, faced mandatory death penalty for trafficking more than 15g of heroin.
Held: The court eventually applied amended law giving judges discretion if the offender was a courier and cooperated.
International Comparison: International drug control conventions (UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs) encourage proportional punishment. Singapore’s laws are stricter than international averages but partially reformed to allow discretion.
5. Sexual Offenses and Consent
Singapore Law
Rape and sexual assault laws are codified in the Penal Code. Consent is central, but marital rape was historically excluded.
Case 5: Public Prosecutor v Taw Cheng Kong (2002)
Facts: Addressed consent and statutory rape.
Held: The court emphasized strict statutory protection for minors.
International Comparison: International norms (CEDAW, UN CRC) emphasize protection of women and children, aligning with Singaporean law, though Singapore’s marital rape exclusion diverges from international trends.
6. International Crimes and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
Singapore criminal law criminalizes terrorism and transnational crimes.
Case 6: Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Ali (2016)
Facts: Defendant convicted for supporting terrorism abroad.
Held: Singapore courts applied extraterritorial jurisdiction.
International Comparison: UN Security Council resolutions encourage states to prosecute terrorism domestically. Singapore aligns closely with international norms in prosecuting terrorism with extraterritorial application.
7. Procedural Fairness and Human Rights
Case 7: Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor (2010) – Procedural Safeguards
Singapore courts ensured right to legal representation and appeal.
International Comparison: ICCPR Article 14 emphasizes fair trial, legal counsel, and appeal rights. Singapore aligns procedurally, though capital punishment policies remain stricter.
Case 8: Public Prosecutor v Abdul Kahar bin Othman (2015)
Facts: Procedural challenge on death penalty review.
Held: Courts emphasized judicial process, in line with international norms on fair trial.
8. Comparative Observations
| Area | Singapore Law | International Norms | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Death Penalty | Mandatory for some offenses, judicial discretion recently allowed | Abolitionist trend; ICCPR favors restriction | Singapore partially reforms but retains strict penalty |
| Corporal Punishment | Judicial caning | Considered cruel/inhuman by UN | Divergence |
| Drug Offenses | Strict liability, mandatory death for trafficking | UN conventions favor proportionality | Singapore stricter but allows some judicial discretion |
| Sexual Offenses | Protects minors, marital rape historically excluded | UN CRC & CEDAW stress protection, marital rape recognized | Partial divergence |
| Procedural Fairness | Right to counsel, appeal, fair trial | ICCPR Article 14 | Largely aligned |
| Transnational Crimes | Extraterritorial jurisdiction for terrorism | UN Security Council encourages domestic prosecution | Alignment |
Summary
Singapore criminal law is stricter and more deterrent-oriented than international norms.
Capital punishment and caning are major divergences from UN human rights standards.
Procedural protections like fair trial, legal representation, and appeal rights largely align with international norms.
Drug laws and transnational crime laws show both strict domestic enforcement and partial alignment with international conventions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments